{% include "includes/auth/janrain/signIn_traditional.html" with message='It looks like you are already verified. If you still have trouble signing in, you probably need a new confirmation link email.' %}

Are Florida politicians able to use “blind trusts” to hide assets and interests from voters?

The 2013 blind trust legislation appears designed for Florida Gov. Rick Scott, seen here at NeoGenomics Laboratories, a cancer research company, in Fort Myers last week. The governor has substantial assets, and his time in office illustrates that transparency and openness are not cornerstones of his administration. (Corey Perrine/Naples Daily News via AP)

The Florida Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding a state law that allows politicians to avoid disclosing a detailed list of their assets by putting them into a blind trust was understandable, but disappointing.

Again, a disappointment. More disappointing, however, is the fact that the law continues to exist as a stain on our cherished Sunshine Amendment. That calls for proactive action by the Legislature, rather than awaiting the right court filing.

Of course, the reason there’s nothing at issue is because Gov. Rick Scott, after the lawsuit was filed last year, dissolved his blind trust and released a financial disclosure form during his re-election campaign. After the election, the governor indicated that he intends to re-establish the trust and shield his assets from disclosure again. It turned out to be a fruitful and clever legal strategy, and a disappointing dodge by the governor.

As we have noted before, Florida has done a poor job of policing political mischief in the areas of gerrymandering and political fund-raising. The millions spent to influence our campaigns by outside groups is disturbing and poorly regulated. The one area where Florida has gotten it right is in our Sunshine Amendment, which forces financial disclosures from politicians to bring light to potential conflicts of interest.

The Florida Government Sunshine Laws Amendment was Florida’s first successful constitutional initiative. In 1976, it was overwhelmingly adopted into the state Constitution with 79 percent of the vote. The amendment is a legacy of the late Gov. Reuben Askew, who campaigned successfully across the state for greater openness and transparency in government. In an era of increasing money and partisanship in state politics, Askew’s victory for open government is one of the few pillars left underpinning our faith in state government.

Don Hinkle, a major fundraiser for President Barack Obama and former Gov. Charlie Crist, shows a chart alleging Scott assets not disclosed in bliund trust.

The 2013 blind trust legislation appears designed for Scott. The governor has substantial assets, and his time in office illustrates that transparency and openness are not cornerstones of his administration. Nonetheless, when he or anyone else chooses to run for office, they are agreeing to be bound by the requirements and principles that underlie our Constitution.

Neither the governor nor the Legislature should be allowed to make an end-run around our disclosure requirements because of a desire for secrecy.